Improving user experience with remote vehicle interfaces is an ongoing area of development. Particular areas of concern include optimizing mission-critical response time, minimizing training and logistics support, minimizing complexity, attaining an ideal weight, size, and simplicity while increasing durability and reliability, and the ability to integrate the control system into gear normally worn or carried by the user.
Users can be burdened by large amounts of equipment and gear. For example, typical military gear includes an Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) and weapons such as an M16 or an M4 carbine. Gear often additionally includes one or more of ammunition, first aid kits, hip- or back-worn canteens, gas masks, radios, and/or monocles. Such equipment is commonly stored and carried in or on specific military gear; for example, MOLLE ruck sacks (Army) or Improved Load Bearing Equipment (ILBE) Assault Packs (Marines). The most critical equipment is preferably located within immediate arms' reach on the front of the torso, typically around the waist. Extensive gear can result in limited range of motion for military personnel, complicating fast transitions into various firing positions as well as entering and exiting vehicles.
Generally, users are willing to carry additional equipment if it adds value, but will not wear equipment that interferes with their safety, mobility, or mission effectiveness. Also, users have indicated a preference for Velcro® fasteners over other fasteners such as ALICE clips or the straps associated with the MOLLE system. Further, there is a preference for a minimum number of wires, because wires can get caught on various protrusions, especially when entering and exiting vehicles. Further, military personnel want to be able to take off their helmets periodically, and therefore prefer to not be encumbered by any non-detachable head gear. Still further, military personnel do not want to be targeted as a specialized soldier (remote vehicle operator) and therefore value concealable components, particularly when the components are not muse.
Users of remote vehicles for detecting and disarming explosive devices require delicate control of grippers and arms of the remote vehicle to disarm explosive devices and gather evidence, but also require a certain amount of strength to maneuver explosive devices to a safe location.
There are a number of remote vehicles that may be deployed, depending on situational needs. Each remote vehicle may be capable of performing a number of missions and a variety of tasks. However, many elements of interacting with the various remote vehicles are common. It is therefore desirable to provide a common controller baseline that can be minimally modified to accommodate a variety of remote vehicles, missions, and tasks. The common baseline should be intuitive to a user and support dismounted (remote) operations.
Further, situational awareness must only be minimally compromised by the remote vehicle's control system.